I think there’s some wiggle room there, because the fetus is in a sense aggressing against the woman. Suppose you’re being threatened by an armed madman who thinks killing you will stop the Romulans from invading Earth. He’s innocent, just like the fetus–if I believed as he did, as a patriotic Earthling I’d probably do the same thing–but that doesn’t mean you have to just stand there and get shot, and if deadly force is the only thing that would save you, I think you’d be justified in using it.
I think it’s a false comparison, or a false construction, or a false conflating of situations. Or something.
“We” already DO have medical abortion. It is used to save the mother’s life. Sometimes, that is the only choice because to do nothing would doom both a fetus that already has no chance AND the mother. That is the most extreme example, but it’s still a realistic one. It is also a decision that SHOULD belong to the people directly involved and at risk - the mother and her doctor.
It is NOT the same as picking up a gun and shooting someone. And, being a lapsed Catholic, I seem to remember something about (in other situations at least) that allowing someone to die, through deliberate non-action was considered a Very Bad Thing.
Also, in the “e3xample” of shooting someone, that is already done sometimes. People shoot to protect themselves. They shoot to protect someone else. The law, and even the Church is OK with it, it’s called defense. Not to be too much of a smart ass, but law enforcement people DO carry guns (and use them) to protect themselves and others (at least that is the intent but they manage to sometimes get killed too).
So, the above argument conflating abortion and shooting is a bad argument that says not a thing.
I disagree. The fetus presents a risk to the mother, but through no fault of its own. It is not the fetus’s fault that it is there, nor that its presence will cause the death of the mother.
I disagree that he is innocent. Even if his belief was true, he has chosen to murder an innocent person to prevent their arrival, a decision that in a sane individual would demonstrate a callous disregard for innocent life by failing to verify either the goal or the means.
If he’s crazy as a shit house mouse, he is not responsible for his actions. To me, this means that due to being all messed up in the head, he is blameless (innocent). But, if he tried to kill me to stop the Romulan invasion, I’d still protect myself by any means necessary.
So, there’s a streetcar that’s out of control, careening towards a group of people. There’s one chance: shoving something heavy in front of the streetcar will cause it to grind to a halt. You’re on the side of the street, too skinny to really make a difference. But next to you is a portly, tall gentleman whose body mass would certainly stop the streetcar, alas at the certain cost of his life.
Do you shove him into the path of the streetcar to save the otherwise-doomed crowd?
I’m pretty anti-baby killing but in the case of self defense, the baby’s innocence is not really the crucial issue.
If I am in Vietnam and I see a little kid with a land mine strapped to his chest running towards me because they’ve been told i have candy, it would break my heart but I’d have to shoot him.
Another similar, related issue is “collateral damage” when bombing enemy targets. Was the Hiroshima bombing justified because it would save more lives by ending the war, even at the cost of killing a hundred thousand innocent civilian non combatants? Assuming that was actually the case (and I have serious doubts) I’d say yes.
Another variation of the “trolley problem” I’ve heard that makes things interesting: You’re stuck to the track, and there’s a train barreling towards you that will surely kill you. You can avert your own death, but only by throwing a switch that would kill an innocent person who is stuck on another set of tracks. Does the principle of “self defense” justify this action?
More akin to the abortion issue would be the trolley is going to kill you both if you do nothing, just the innocent other if you throw the switch.
Though I really hate the idea of the other being “innocent” having any bearing on this. Pregnant women aren’t guilty of anything, unless having female genitalia is a sin.
All right, you people who think abortion is murder, how do you like this?
A young woman is pregnant. In her fourth month, at a routine prenatal exam, she mentions some lumpy thing in her breast, and it gets checked. And it’s cancerous.
Not only that, it’s a fast-moving type.
The medical types cannot treat it aggressively because that would result in damage to the fetus. Yet, if they don’t treat it aggressively, the mother may not even live long enough to give birth. What do you do?
I say, and the hospital (a Catholic hospital) said, it’s the mother’s choice. Her life, her choice. And she chose to have the baby, and get the aggressive treatment later.
She died when her daughter was 17 days old.
Now, I am okay with this, because it was the mother’s choice–both the pregnancy and the decision to continue it no matter what. But had it been the hospital’s choice, would you really want to be that kid? Really?
Bricker’s portly, tall gentleman and Blalron’s innocent person on the other track aren’t by any stretch of the imagination aggressors. They’re not the proximate cause* of anyone’s death; they’re innocent bystanders.
This sort of reasoning has applications in situations more likely than these moral dilemmas. If you’re a soldier fighting a just war, an enemy soldier may well not be a bad person. He may be misled by propaganda. He might have been drafted. The real assholes are the other country’s leaders, but you shoot at the enemy soldier anyway because he’s the guy pointing a gun at you.
*In the philosophical sense. God and Bricker only know who’s the proximate cause in the legal sense, and I only have three brain cells left; I’m not going to waste them trying to figure it out.
Can I be the woman? If so, I’d wait as long as it takes for the baby to be at all viable (24-25 weeks) and deliver early, hoping that we both have the best outcome, with baby being so early and me putting off treatment for weeks. I don’t think I could live with either other choice, really.
But, I wouldn’t go to a Catholic Hospital if I had any choice even though I’m prolife, because they do over-step…well, that and the fact that they nearly killed both my mother and I by waiting too long to bother the doctor on Easter when Mom had delivery complications.
Ginger and Mary Ann each decided to take a short boating trip. They both bought tickets for a three-hour tour, from a reputable firm that had been recommended to them.
Unfortunately, the firm had hired a new, incompetent Captain who didn’t pay attention to the weather warnings, and the tiny ship was sunk in a storm. All aboard were lost except these two. The incompetent captain had also failed to require his passengers to put on life vests.
Mary Ann was an experienced ocean swimmer and had been smart enough to put on a life vest of her own accord. Poor Ginger couldn’t swim and didn’t have any equipment. She was quick enough, however, to latch on to Mary Ann as Mary Ann swam away from the sinking ship.
Without Mary Ann’s support, Ginger will drown. Mary Ann, on her own, will be able to survive until rescued the next day. However, the life vest won’t hold two, and Mary Ann isn’t strong enough to support Ginger all night. If she tries, both will drown.
Is Mary Ann obligated to drown trying to save Ginger? Or is she allowed to kick Ginger loose to save herself, knowing that either way Ginger will die?
I’m not absolutist on this but I think I fall into this camp.
I tell the mother what is going on and ask her what she wants to do.
Only 7% of abortions are medically necessary, the rest are elective.
60% of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks (this basically means you got an abortion as soon as you found out you were pregnant). 80% of abortions occur in the first trimester. I have no problem with those (I don’t think people intentionally use abortion as a form of birth control, at least not enough to base policy on it) but we should improve sex education and access to prophylactics.
I have a problem with abortions after the first trimester. Most of the reasons for having an abortion are significantly mitigated by adoption. Is killing your child really preferable to giving it up for adoption because you have to go through the inconvenience of pregnancy and childbirth?
The Catholic church’s doctrine on double effect falls down COMPLETELY when it comes to ectopic tubal pregnancy.
An untreated ectopic tubal pregnancy will rupture. A ruptured tubal pregnancy causes massive internal bleeding and is potentially fatal. Tubal pregnancy is NEVER viable-the tube will rupture long before 24 weeks.
There are 3 treatments for unruptured ectopic pregnancy.
Remove the tube, with the pregnancy in situ- decreasing fertility significantly.
Open the tube, remove the pregnancy, close the tube- fertility better preserved.
Medication to terminate the pregnancy- when the foetus dies it is reabsorbed and the tube shouldn’t rupture. This option doesn’t require surgery and if successful is safest for the woman with good preservation of fertility.
In countries like Chile, where abortion even to save the life of the woman is illegal option 1 is the only available option if an unruptured ectopic pregnancy with a foetal heartbeat is seen on ultrasound, and in some cases even this is refused, so that the woman has to wait untl the tube actually ruptures and her life is “properly” at risk before the surgery is performed.
Options 2 and 3 are available only if no foetal heartbeat is seen.
Doctrinally to remove a tube which happens to contain a pregnancy, thereby ending it is fine. To remove the pregnancy itself or to terminate the pregnancy is not.
Now here’s a question…what if the baby has died in utereo? would the Catholic church have an objection to that? Or if the baby has an extreme profound birth defect? i do think in many extreme profound birth defects, abortion needs to be thought of as simply turning off life support on a terminally ill or brain dead patient. Extreme profound birth defects are the ones where the baby will die at or soon after birth. Or best case scereio, they will live in a pediatric nursing home, and have the mentality of a newborn baby for the rest of their lives.
This is precisely why I thought the RCC was okay with abortion to save lives. Because I’m pretty sure they’re okay with this.
I guess it’s more like how they are against direct patient suicide, but okay with a patient choosing not to eat after the treatments have been exhausted.
Mary Ann is obliged to try to save both of them if possible – and if not, to evaluate their relative chances of survival, then take the course of action that would most likely allow ONE of them to live. She can’t just say “Oh, there’s a chance that I might die. Tough luck, Ginger; it’s death for you.”
That’s why these attempts to justify abortion on the basis of the mother’s possible death are foolish. It’s not enough to say that the pregnant woman might die. The ethical choice is to consider their relative chances of survival and then evaluate one’s course of action accordingly. This means trying to save both if possible, and if not, then trying to maximize the chances that one of them will survive.
Moreover, these situations do nothing to justify abortion in general. After all, there are times when an average citizen might need to shoot someone – to stop a terrorist from blowing up a bus filled with children, for example. Does this mean that people are justified in killing other people for more mundane reasons?
